Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 3, 2024
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
It's Hillary who's thick as thieves with the Russians, not Donald Trump
While Clinton was in charge at the State Department, the U.S. recruited a bunch of U.S. high-tech powerhouses -- including Google, Cisco and Intel -- to take part in the [high tech Skolkovo] project. Of the 28 companies from the U.S., Europe and Russia that took part, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or paid for Bill Clinton to give speeches.
It's yet another stunning example of the Clinton Foundation's growing list of conflicts of interest, suggesting that Hillary used the State Department's offices to line her family's pockets through the Clinton Foundation. Don't forget that, with her email carelessness on her home-brew server during her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary has already exposed the United States' most secret information to the Russian government. As radio talk show host and law professor Hugh Hewitt noted Monday: "Hillary is already a Putin pawn."
Friday, January 16, 2015
Bill Donohue to Hugh Hewitt: a single bishop has been found to agree with me, namely the Bishop of Rome
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, here, happy that the pope agrees that there are limits to freedom of speech, limits we impose on ourselves:
"I am obviously delighted that the pope has taken the same position I have on this issue. Radio chatterbox Hugh Hewitt doubted last week whether a single bishop would side with me. What does he have to say now?"
Michael Savage attacks the pope for saying limits exist to free speech, ends up saying the same thing
 |
| Michael Alan Weiner |
Michael Savage attacked the pope yesterday for two things: for stating that there are limits to freedom of speech, and for opining that human beings bear some responsibility for global warming.
Savage found the first idea an affront to the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"), wondering how the pope never heard of it.
The pope in his capacity as the vicar of Christ on earth, however, wasn't telling Congress to abridge the freedom of speech of anyone. He was simply reminding Christians everywhere (and chiding the secularists of France and the United States especially--hello Hugh Hewitt) to restrain their own speech as a matter of spiritual principle, in obedience to the teaching of Jesus:
"Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. ... [W]hat comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
-- Matthew 15:10f, 18ff.
The pope was reminding the world that there is a higher law than the laws of France or the laws of the United States when it comes to what we say. Every Jew should be able instantly to recognize this idea, since practicing Jews frequently restrain their own speech as a matter of principle. They will often write "G-d" instead of "God" for fear of taking God's name in vain as the commandment in the decalogue warns. More to the point, every Jew should already grasp the Jewish basis for the Christian idea of self-restrained speaking because it comes from the prophet Jeremiah who said that "the heart is evil above all things". And neither do Jews have any excuse to be surprised by the doctrine since it is well worked out by the rabbis in the doctrine of "the evil inclination" which must always be guarded against.
Michael Savage, however, is lately more interested in removing the guards, indeed in "unprotected talk", rather than in the circumspect speech implied by his well-known motto of borders, language, culture. Freedom of speech as understood absolutely by civil libertarians is at war with that, because it leads to open borders, many languages and multiculturalism. Savage should understand by now that such libertarianism is incompatible with conservatism, and that when it comes to mental disorders, liberalism does not have a corner on the market.
The coup de grace came yesterday when Savage turned to the global warming statement made by the pope. Savage said he objected to the pope addressing a matter that had nothing to do with religion because it was outside the pope's area of expertise, outside his scope, as Savage put it, which it certainly is.
But isn't that nice. The pope exercises his freedom of speech on a matter not expressly religious and Savage all of a sudden wants to limit it, obviously because he disagrees with it but also because the pope is not an expert. But the pope has every right to speak his nonsense in the United States, whether religious or otherwise. The point of criticism on this matter should be on the substance of what the pope says, not on his role as pope supposedly "pontificating" about it.
In this still Protestant country, the pope is viewed as nothing more than a man who is no different from us, whether he speaks about the teaching of Jesus or anything else. We can say that the pope is right about the limits to freedom of speech as he stated them, and that he is probably quite mistaken about the human role in global warming, because on both counts we can look into the matter and decide for ourselves from the evidence.
We read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, but unless we do, we risk appearing Christians or Jews or Americans in name only.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is right: Charlie Hebdo went way over the top of acceptable
Here in "Muslims are right to be angry":
[W]hat happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction. Those who work at [Charlie Hebdo] have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. ... In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, [Charb] said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
Hugh Hewitt here can't believe there's an important Catholic alive who shares Donohue's opinion.
I can't believe it either, but at least we've got Bill Donohue.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Catholic Republicans Gang Up On Protestant Todd Akin
Laura Ingraham calls him a liar, Sean Hannity gives a prominent forum to Ann Coulter, who likens Akin to Eliot Spitzer and elsewhere calls him a swine, and Hugh Hewitt encourages him to drop out. Oh yeah, and throw in the VP nominee, well after the deadline.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Both Romney And Obama Will Destroy The Economy By Destroying Housing
In November 2011 Romney told Hugh Hewitt, here, that it was not a good time to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction in view of the problems in the housing sector:
My own view is that the idea of limiting deductions in the way the Bowles-Simpson panel recommended makes a good deal of sense. I’d like to see us have lower tax rates, and have a broader base. And it sounds like their idea is looking for a way of doing that. I must admit, I don’t think that this is a great time to be eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction. We obviously have a lot of trouble in the housing sector right now, but I haven’t seen their proposal. It may work just fine, but I just haven’t seen it, so I wouldn’t want to comment on that. But the home mortgage interest deduction right now is something that I think we need to keep in place.
But by February 2012 it had become a good time to eliminate the deduction, at least for the rich, a position identical to Obama's, as noted here:
“In order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also to make sure we continue to have progressivity in our tax code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions, particularly for high-income folks,” Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said.
Reiterated in April at a private fund-raiser as reported here, the idea suddenly had become toxic again, enough to merit walkbacks from his advisers, reported here:
Senior advisers to Mitt Romney said Monday that Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was merely tossing around ideas, not making policy announcements, when his chat with donors about some significant changes to the tax code was overheard by reporters at a fund-raiser this weekend.
When it comes to Mitt Romney, we all know that there's no there there on any number of issues. But it is especially disturbing that neither Romney nor Obama seem to grasp the scope of the damage their shared idea of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthy would cause to the American economy.
Wayne Allyn Root explains, here:
If you think the housing market is in trouble now, wait until the home mortgage interest deduction is eliminated for upper income homeowners.
From Manhattan, Great Neck, and Scarsdale, to Boca Raton, Scottsdale, and Brentwood, home prices in upper class neighborhoods from coast to coast will drop by about 35% overnight. That 35% number is not a guess, it’s automatic.
Today, if you’re in the top bracket, you deduct 35% of your mortgage interest off your tax bill. If tomorrow you can’t, your home is worth about one third less.
That's how economics works.
Unless Obama manages to also raise the top income tax rate to 40%. Then, when you lose your mortgage deduction your home will drop by about 40% overnight. Can you imagine the carnage to the housing market if this happens?
Obama's economic theories just don't compute. He believes that if you take away more of rich people's income through tax increases, and take away their deductions so that the value of their net worth collapses, that will be good for the economy.
He thinks if you take away rich people's money, consumer spending will somehow increase. Even though the facts are that the top 2% of income earners produce over 30% of U.S. consumer spending, while the top 5% produce 40% of consumer spending.
Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a tsunami wiping out values at the top end of the housing market can only swamp values at the low end.
Six years after the collapse in housing began, we still have no leadership on the most significant economic problem facing Americans at all income levels.
Monday, March 14, 2011
US Domestic Oil Production Increased in 2009 and 2010
The data are clearly shown at the link here to the US Energy Information Administration website, and show that after five consecutive years of domestic production declines, 2009 production exceeded 2008 production, and 2010 production exceeded 2009 production.
This was true despite declining production from Alaska. There were remarkable back to back years of production increases both in the Gulf of Mexico and in the lower 48 states, especially in North Dakota.
Conservatives who wish to dispute this are idiots. Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt are brushing up awfully close to this.
Obama's attempt to take credit for it is completely disingenuous. He would stop the use of oil tomorrow if he could. Pure snake oil.
Conservatives who wish to dispute this are idiots. Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt are brushing up awfully close to this.
Obama's attempt to take credit for it is completely disingenuous. He would stop the use of oil tomorrow if he could. Pure snake oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)